Pages

Monday, October 31, 2011

The concepts of
human rights, human dignity, self-rule and self-determination are quite modern. Such concepts did not exist in the ancient
world. Even if we were to find a glimpse of these concepts discussed in
philosophies and texts of the ancients, we do not necessarily see its
implementation as a comprehensive and extended practice to actually alter the
lives of the people.

For thousands of
years, man was born as a slave or subject and died as one. Most of these slaves and subjects, sometimes
even the landlords, did not possess any rights.
And the worst part is- most of them did not even realize that they
possessed certain rights that are not necessarily ordained by their monarch.

Their assets,
their property, their worth, their produce and even their self-respect, was up
for grabs by their landlord, their king or an invading king or a marauding
dacoit. Security was an expensive commodity.
The monarch provided meager security that was not even assured, and in
return usurped all their rights.

It took many
centuries of struggle in certain parts of the world to come to a realization that
man had certain ‘inalienable’ rights, which even the most powerful monarch
could not take those away from him.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

While describing the merger of Telangana and Andhra
State in 1956 that resulted in formation of Andhra Pradesh, we tend to use metaphors
like calling it ‘marriage of unequals’, or describing it as ‘an innocent girl
married to naughty boy’. Nehru
purportedly said that this ‘marriage’ could be annulled through a ‘divorce’ at
any point of time in future. While such
comparisons make poetic sense for the sake of driving a point, there is a
danger when people start taking these analogies quite literally. Right now, such comparisons are encouraging
some Seemandhra politicians to seek alimony from Telangana or compensation from
New Delhi for the loss of Hyderabad. They
should realize that any talks of compensation for the loss of Hyderabad as if
it is ‘alimony’ will be quite disastrous for Seemandhras.

When Gujaratis claimed Bombay because they had
invested heavily into the city, no compensation was provided to Gujaratis for
the loss when Bombay eventually became part of new Maharashtra. No such compensation was given to Andhra
State when Madras was retained by Tamil Nadu.
There was no discussion on ‘alimony’ because no one seriously
considered them to be real marriages. Back
then, people were sensible enough to admit that such poetic references cannot
be taken literally.

Monday, October 03, 2011

It is the foolishness of New Delhi and the arrogance
of Samaikhyandhra proponents to suggest that Hyderabad may be centrally-ruled
or be the joint-capital of two new states.
This proposal comes from a gross misunderstanding of the current
sentiment of Telangana people both by New Delhi and by the Samaikhyandhra leaders. All these days when Telangana agitations did
not spillover into something what would be described as ‘uncontrollable’ or
‘violent’, these detractors got smug about their ambivalent and lackadaisical handling
of the issue. They started to believe
that they can continue to ‘contain’ this people’s movement for years, and if
needed, for decades, through tactics of delay and evasion by setting up meetings
and consultations while suppressing the agitations through repressive measures. They started to characterize the movement and
its leaders as capable of barking but not biting. They concluded that as long as they allow
these leaders to continue to bark, the movement will never bite. Therefore, New Delhi (like United States) allows
Seemandhra (like Israel) to continue to occupy, control and rule Telangana
(like Palestine) forever and forever while the resources and lands of Telangana
continue to be used and colonized by Seemandhras.